“Males, like the rats following the Pied Piper, will be lured by Pussy to their doom, will be overcome and submerged by and will eventually drown in the passive flesh that they are.”

“Self-forgetfulness should be one’s goal, not self-absorption. The male, capable of only the latter, makes a virtue of an irremediable fault and sets up self-absorption, not only as a good but as a Philosophical Good, and thus gets credit for being deep.”

“Like the aesthete “appreciating” the blob that’s labeled “Great Art,” she believes she’s grooving on what bores the shit out of her.”

“The male’s inability to relate to anybody or anything makes his life pointless and meaningless (the ultimate male insight is that life is absurd), so he invented philosophy and religion.”

“The “hippy” is enticed to the commune mainly by the prospect of all the free pussy — the main commodity to be shared.”

“The male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion.”

This doesn’t feel like the kind of thing I should give a star rating so I’m not doing that. But what this lacks in nuance it makes up for in the pure expression of rage against an unjust society and comedy.

Also my edition had a lot of bizarre typos which I chalked up to Solanas writing in a fit of passion and not caring to correct her own typos, but then there were even worse typos in the bio of Solanas following the text of the SCUM Manifesto. Like within a single paragraph the person who wrote this bio alternately misspells Valerie’s name as “Varlerie” and “Valarie.” What the fuck. Also Michelle Tea’s introduction is

Just to be clear, my rating of the book doesn't speak to whether I agree with the views of the author or not. I just found this to be highly entertaining.

I almost gave up on this mostly because the introduction never seemed to end, it's a bit unfair for the intro to be just as long as the manifesto itself. Finally getting to the manifesto was when I was hooked. Extreme, vulgar, wild, interesting, a bit cathartic.

Yet this is nothing compared to the amount of media that is out there depicting violence and hatred against women, very loudly and proudly, that make this book seem mild. Hell, there are ordinary conversations between men that casually degrade women in a way that would put the scum manifesto to shame.

I'm not rating it because I wouldn't know how. I have mixed feelings. I really liked the postface by the French journalist in my edition. I really liked the uncompromising anger of it, and the link of liberation through anarchy and stuff like that. Wasn't a fan of any moments mentioning trans women, they were Very Bad (at least in a modern setting, I don't know how it would've been seen at the time tbh).

It's also a very weird read as a non-binary person overall. Like. Extremely binary, which is understandable in context, but just weird to read now.
There's also next to no mention of racism and white supremacy and the influence of that on the dynamics of oppression.

Anyway. Not entirely sure what to feel about it, but placed in context (historical and personal/considering the author's background) it's an interesting read. The anger of it is what stays the most, I think.